Upeksha wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 6:39 amAre you suggesting that there was no influence of Vedic ideas on the Buddha?
Based on the higher teachings, such as the Four Noble Truths (1st sermon), Three Characteristics (2nd Sermon) & Three Defilements Affecting Six Sense Spheres (3rd Sermon) and Nibbana, yes, I would say there is no influence, otherwise the Buddha could not be the Self-Enlightened-Buddha. In his 1st sermon, the Buddha said the Four Noble Truths were ideas he had never heard before.
However, as for the lower teachings for laypeople, these include Brahmanistic doctrines, such as: "this world & the other world".
How then - just as one example - would you interpret the Buddha studying with Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta, finding their respective meditative realisations lacking and thus moving on to an ascetic path, before rejecting that?
The fact that Gotama rejected their doctrine & used the 4th jhana shows he was not positively influenced by them.
Are you proposing that these other systems - the very fact that it was possible to be a yogi of some kind, aspiring to liberation of some kind - had no bearing on the Buddha's life and subsequent teachings?
Sure. But Gotama did not follow Brahmanism (later called Hinduism) but followed the Samana wandering tradition, which obviously did not have any systematic doctrines.
I find such a proposition so difficult to countenance.
Sure. Gotama has influences but his final realisation was original; according to Buddhist doctrine.
Kind regards
1. Rejecting a doctrine does not imply 'not being influenced but it.' In fact, it clearly implies the opposite.
2. I am not asserting that the Buddha taught Vedic or Upanishadic 'truths' or that he did not make an extraordinary and original contribution. I am merely saying 'the historical context in which he existed, was one which every historian recognises to be - broadly - Vedic in character.' Just as, for example, Socrates taught original truths which were - irrefutably - Greek in character.'
3. You freely admit that Gotama followed the Samana wandering tradition - it is bordering on the absurd to suggest that this was entirely independent from Vedic and Upanishadic context or influence.
Pseudobabble wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:26 amAssuming you are correct about DO, and other matters.
I personally have no doubts about DO.
Upeksha wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:32 amYou freely admit that Gotama followed the Samana wandering tradition - it is bordering on the absurd to suggest that this was entirely independent from Vedic and Upanishadic context or influence.
As I said, the Buddha said in many suttas his core teachings were things he had never heard before. To suggest otherwise infers the Buddha was a liar. Also, if you can find equivalents in Vedic and Upanishadic context; please quote them. Please provide evidence. Thanks
Kind regards
This is the noble truth of suffering’: thus, bhikkhus, in regard to things unheard before, there arose in me vision, knowledge, wisdom, true knowledge, and light.
Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands—this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All phenomena are not-self.
“The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, & makes it plain: All phenomena are not-self.”
He understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that two Accomplished Ones, Fully Enlightened Ones, could arise contemporaneously in one world-system ― there is no such possibility.’ And he understands: ‘It is possible that one Accomplished One, a Fully Enlightened One, might arise in one world-system ― there is such a possibility.’
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.
Pseudobabble wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:26 amAssuming you are correct about DO, and other matters.
I personally have no doubts about DO.
Whether you have doubts is a separate matter from whether you are correct or not.
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"
"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'" - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta
Sam Vara wrote:Good topic, Will. The Swami is right, but I have known a lot of people who are desperate to uncover some kind of universal spirituality or philosophia perennis, and then decontextualise and distort the meaning of different texts and traditions in order to make them fit. Our motives will condition what we find in our studies.
True enough Sam, yet any bright intellect can 'desperately' analyze distinctions into differences and thus produce islands of views, schools and paths. Perhaps that is why Buddha praised non-attachment so much. A truly impartial motivation toward truth is possible.
The last couple of chapters in the Suttanipata make that pretty clear.
Yes, I agree. There are probably different pitfalls for different defilements, and at least those who look for similarities are motivated by the desire to build bridges, and their endeavours usually end in less conflict.
I'll check out the Suttanipata reference later this evening - thanks!
This thread seems to be veering off-topic.
Here are some of the Sutta-Nipata verses (ch. IV) I was thinking of. The key appears to be that thinking or cognizing conceptually will not take one beyond samsara. It often just tangles us up even more. Yet there is a way knowing directly, which interfaith studies discover in many non-Buddhist paths.
5 The man who, having undertaken certain holy practices himself, attached to ideas, passes from superior to inferior states. But the wise man, having understood the Truth by the [supreme] means of knowledge does not pass from superior to inferior states.
(792)
6 He who has dissociated himself from whatever is seen, heard or cognized. How can one have doubts about such an insightful person who conducts himself openly?
(793)
7 They do not speculate, they do not esteem any views and say ‘This is the highest purity’. They release the knot of dogmatic clinging and do not long for anything in the world.
(794)
8 The brahmin who has transcended the limits of mundane existence; he has no grasping after knowing or seeing. He delights neither in passion nor in dispassion. For him there is nothing here to be grasped as the highest.
Excerpt From: Saddhatissa, H. The Sutta-Nipata
See also Paramaṭṭhakasutta
Good and evil have no fixed form. It's as easy to turn from doing bad to doing good as it is to flip over the hand from the back to the palm. It's simply up to us to do it. Master Hsuan Hua.
I think there is a lot of value in studying the quaran and the commentary because one can then debate the various positions and there are many debates on islam nowadays.
Islam is at war with Buddhism one could say in sense that people on account of views and an undefendable interpretation of the body of text are killing people who call themselves Buddhists and Muslims in oppositon even. There are passages that say that one ought not to kill monks in the monasteries or that killing any innocent person kafir or not is like killing the whole of humanity. I think there is a lot of value in defending those positions in that arena.
Here is a seemingly honest take on commentary work
Last edited by User1249x on Fri Feb 23, 2018 6:25 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Will wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 3:36 pm
The key appears to be that thinking or cognizing conceptually will not take one beyond samsara. It often just tangles us up even more. Yet there is a way knowing directly, which interfaith studies discover in many non-Buddhist paths.
I take your point, but the problem remains that although different traditions lay claim to a way of "knowing directly", there remains the possibility that they are all talking about different objects of knowledge. If two or more people say that they know the truth, that in itself is no guarantee that they know the same thing. The guarantee is provided by a more detailed description of what they say they know, and sufficient understanding of the terms in which this knowledge is framed so as to be sure that they mean the same thing.
Will wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 3:36 pm
The key appears to be that thinking or cognizing conceptually will not take one beyond samsara. It often just tangles us up even more. Yet there is a way knowing directly, which interfaith studies discover in many non-Buddhist paths.
I take your point, but the problem remains that although different traditions lay claim to a way of "knowing directly", there remains the possibility that they are all talking about different objects of knowledge. If two or more people say that they know the truth, that in itself is no guarantee that they know the same thing. The guarantee is provided by a more detailed description of what they say they know, and sufficient understanding of the terms in which this knowledge is framed so as to be sure that they mean the same thing.
Quite so Sam, but as long as the dichotomy of knower & object of knowledge operates, then we are in the area of conceptual knowing. I am not suggesting that all non-conceptual knowing garners the identical result, only that conceptual thinking is a tangled web or better, a circular trap.
Gotama became Buddha using (if I recall) the 4th Dhyana perception, which is beyond ideas & concepts.
Good and evil have no fixed form. It's as easy to turn from doing bad to doing good as it is to flip over the hand from the back to the palm. It's simply up to us to do it. Master Hsuan Hua.
Will wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:58 pm
Quite so Sam, but as long as the dichotomy of knower & object of knowledge operates, then we are in the area of conceptual knowing. I am not suggesting that all non-conceptual knowing garners the identical result, only that conceptual thinking is a tangled web or better, a circular trap.
Gotama became Buddha using (if I recall) the 4th Dhyana perception, which is beyond ideas & concepts.
Interesting stuff, but I have two problems with it. (I mean that sincerely as one attempting unsuccessfully trying to understand it, rather than cynically, as one trying to discredit it!)
The first one is what is meant by non-conceptual knowing? Do you see it as part of my (our) current mental equipment? Is it something to be cultivated, and if so, how?
The second issue is that I don't, at the moment, see all conceptual thinking as a trap. Quite apart from the huge benefits it brings us elsewhere, a lot of the Buddha's teachings seem to fall into that category. It seems that if non-conceptual knowing is a prerequisite for enlightenment, or is otherwise desirable, then such knowing can only be the result of our doing the right type of conceptual thinking beforehand, so as to create the conditions for such knowing.
Will wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:58 pm
Quite so Sam, but as long as the dichotomy of knower & object of knowledge operates, then we are in the area of conceptual knowing. I am not suggesting that all non-conceptual knowing garners the identical result, only that conceptual thinking is a tangled web or better, a circular trap.
Gotama became Buddha using (if I recall) the 4th Dhyana perception, which is beyond ideas & concepts.
Interesting stuff, but I have two problems with it. (I mean that sincerely as one attempting unsuccessfully trying to understand it, rather than cynically, as one trying to discredit it!)
The first one is what is meant by non-conceptual knowing? Do you see it as part of my (our) current mental equipment? Is it something to be cultivated, and if so, how?
The second issue is that I don't, at the moment, see all conceptual thinking as a trap. Quite apart from the huge benefits it brings us elsewhere, a lot of the Buddha's teachings seem to fall into that category. It seems that if non-conceptual knowing is a prerequisite for enlightenment, or is otherwise desirable, then such knowing can only be the result of our doing the right type of conceptual thinking beforehand, so as to create the conditions for such knowing.
To your first point, no. As to how to cultivate, my only guess (not much more than that) is stay with intense one-minded focus (ekagrata) (once one gets to the 4th jhana) and non-attachment. The latter is more helpful I suspect.
Yes, conceptual pondering is valuable & needed to help us drain our swamp of vices like craving, stupidity & anger. However, during that long, many lives process, attachment to any of a number of mental or devotional factors usually occurs. That is where the danger of attachment can weaken, even vitiate our work. I think that is why Buddha taught much about Renunciation being a powerful tool for both purification and eventual Bodhi.
Last edited by Nicholas Weeks on Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Good and evil have no fixed form. It's as easy to turn from doing bad to doing good as it is to flip over the hand from the back to the palm. It's simply up to us to do it. Master Hsuan Hua.
Pseudobabble wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 1:31 pmWhether you have doubts is a separate matter from whether you are correct or not.
Since you don't know what is correct, what is the point of you posting this? Personally, despite his fame & status, I think Gombrich is thoroughly wrong & I think Gombrich is an internet phenomena among internet Buddhists. If you post his teachings about DO on another thread, I will comment on them. As for his idea DN 13 about brahma-vihara is about Nibbana, I imagine 99% of educated Buddhist regard this as ridiculous.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.
Upeksha wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:32 amYou freely admit that Gotama followed the Samana wandering tradition - it is bordering on the absurd to suggest that this was entirely independent from Vedic and Upanishadic context or influence.
As I said, the Buddha said in many suttas his core teachings were things he had never heard before. To suggest otherwise infers the Buddha was a liar. Also, if you can find equivalents in Vedic and Upanishadic context; please quote them. Please provide evidence. Thanks
Kind regards
I have never suggested that the Buddha did not teach original things - in fact in my last post I said very clearly that he did. You're trying to ascribe or impute things on my statements which simply aren't there. So I think it best from here to politely disagree and leave it at that.
Pseudobabble wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 1:31 pmWhether you have doubts is a separate matter from whether you are correct or not.
Since you don't know what is correct, what is the point of you posting this? Personally, despite his fame & status, I think Gombrich is thoroughly wrong & I think Gombrich is an internet phenomena among internet Buddhists. If you post his teachings about DO on another thread, I will comment on them. As for his idea DN 13 about brahma-vihara is about Nibbana, I imagine 99% of educated Buddhist regard this as ridiculous.
Maybe the issue here is that Gombrich is a historian and you are not really interested in engaging with historical arguments (which is fine btw - if you're a practitioner, I agree it is better to simply meditate on DO). He was famous well before the internet even existed and has been a well regarded scholar for many decades. History is of course contested and everyone has the right to offer alternative interpretations. But if you're going to critique him, you probably need to do so within the context of his own discipline.
Will wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 3:36 pm
The key appears to be that thinking or cognizing conceptually will not take one beyond samsara. It often just tangles us up even more. Yet there is a way knowing directly, which interfaith studies discover in many non-Buddhist paths.
I take your point, but the problem remains that although different traditions lay claim to a way of "knowing directly", there remains the possibility that they are all talking about different objects of knowledge. If two or more people say that they know the truth, that in itself is no guarantee that they know the same thing. The guarantee is provided by a more detailed description of what they say they know, and sufficient understanding of the terms in which this knowledge is framed so as to be sure that they mean the same thing.
Quite so Sam, but as long as the dichotomy of knower & object of knowledge operates, then we are in the area of conceptual knowing. I am not suggesting that all non-conceptual knowing garners the identical result, only that conceptual thinking is a tangled web or better, a circular trap.
Gotama became Buddha using (if I recall) the 4th Dhyana perception, which is beyond ideas & concepts.
I suppose the question is: all conceptual thinking? Or just certain types of conceptual thinking?
I am of the view that conceptual thinking is central to all Buddhist paths - one has to develop modes of analysis that produce the conditions for right view. i.e. one cannot immediately jump to the higher forms of meditative perception; you have first know (conceptually) notions of duhkah etc.
Of course, at some point conceptual knowledge has to give way to direct experience - but I think seeing them as mutually exclusive is a big trap in itself.
Upeksha wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 9:49 pmMaybe the issue here is that Gombrich is a historian and you are not really interested in engaging with historical arguments (which is fine btw - if you're a practitioner, I agree it is better to simply meditate on DO). He was famous well before the internet even existed and has been a well regarded scholar for many decades. History is of course contested and everyone has the right to offer alternative interpretations. But if you're going to critique him, you probably need to do so within the context of his own discipline.
I have already critiqued him elsewhere. His ideas are ridiculous to me. As for taking a 'historical' approach, this is equally irrelevant. Each condition of dependent origination is about things defined & explained in the suttas. Just because all creation myths have similarities does not mean DO is based on a Brahmanistic creation myth. I can post similarities between the Biblical creation myth and D.O. however it does not mean they are the same thing.
Last edited by DooDoot on Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.
